Effects of Cadmium Pollution on Human Health: A Narrative Review
and Yonggang Ma 1,2,3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsatmosphere-3362052
Title: Mechanisms of Cadmium Toxicity: Understanding Its Impacts on Human Health
Authors: Yang et al.,
1. It is necessary to explain the sources of cadmium from nature and anthropogenic emissions.
2. Multimedia exposure should be considered in this study. Cd exposure may come from the atmosphere through inhalation and water, food by ingestion, and contact with dermal substances.
3. The pathway of Cd is necessary from source, exposure, and its effects on target organs.
4. Please check the title, such as (2.3. Nephrotoxic effects, 2.3.1. Cd filtration, etc.)
5. It is necessary to reorganize Table 1 and make it logical and clear to the audience.
6. It is necessary to explain how to reduce Cd exposure and prevent the symptoms of Cd-related diseases.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point-by-Point Response
Manuscript Number: atmosphere-3362052
Title: Effects of Cadmium Pollution: Understanding Its Impacts on Human Health
Journal: Atmosphere
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
On behalf of the co-authors, I am highly thankful to Editor for giving us an opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript in your well reputable journal. We also appreciate the all reviewers for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript work quality. Revised portions are marked with {Yellow Color} in the manuscript. We have made corrections carefully under the light of reviewer’s suggestions as followed:
Reviewer’s Comments
Reviewer (Remarks to the Author)
- It is necessary to explain the sources of cadmium from nature and anthropogenic emissions.
Response: First of all, a lot of thanks for your professional review work & paid attention on our manuscript. Again thank you so much respected reviewer for the constructive valuable suggestion. Respected reviewer, we have added the information related to sources of cadmium from nature and anthropogenic emissions with published reference in introduction part (Page 02).
- Multimedia exposure should be considered in this study. Cd exposure may come from the atmosphere through inhalation and water, food by ingestion, and contact with dermal substances.
Response: Respected reviewer, we have added the information related to Multimedia exposure of Cd in introduction part (Page 02).
- The pathway of Cd is necessary from source, exposure, and its effects on target organs.
Response: Respected reviewer, we have added the information related to source and exposure of Cd, and also have discussed Cd effects on target organs (Page 02).
- Please check the title, such as (2.3. Nephrotoxic effects, 2.3.1. Cd filtration, etc.)
Response: Respected reviewer, we have revised and improved the suggested titles (Page 6 & 9).
- It is necessary to reorganize Table 1 and make it logical and clear to the audience.
Response: Thank you so much respected reviewer for the constructive valuable. Respected reviewer, we have reorganized Table 1 and make it logical and clear to the audience (Page 03).
- It is necessary to explain how to reduce Cd exposure and prevent the symptoms of Cd-related diseases.
Response: We have explained how to mitigating the adverse effect of Cd toxicity (Page 15).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors|
The work is interesting and contributes to the knowledge about environmental Cd which poses significant risks to human health due to its widespread presence in the environment and its ability to accumulate in the body over time. Cd exposure can occur through various routes, including inhalation of contaminated air, ingestion of contaminated food and water, and dermal contact with contaminated soil or dust. Once absorbed, Cd can accumulate in various organs and tissues, exerting toxic effects on multiple physiological systems. The work is review of updated literature related to the Cd toxicity and its impact to human health. This work presented different aspects of Cd as inorganic pollutant in comparison with other similar works.
|
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point-by-Point Response
Manuscript Number: atmosphere-3362052
Title: Effects of Cadmium Pollution: Understanding Its Impacts on Human Health
Journal: Atmosphere
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
On behalf of the co-authors, I am highly thankful to Editor for giving us an opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript in your well reputable journal. We also appreciate the all reviewers for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript work quality. Revised portions are marked with {Yellow Color} in the manuscript. We have made corrections carefully under the light of reviewer’s suggestions as followed:
Reviewer’s Comments
Reviewer (Remarks to the Author)
The work is interesting and contributes to the knowledge about environmental Cd which poses significant risks to human health due to its widespread presence in the environment and its ability to accumulate in the body over time. Cd exposure can occur through various routes, including inhalation of contaminated air, ingestion of contaminated food and water, and dermal contact with contaminated soil or dust. Once absorbed, Cd can accumulate in various organs and tissues, exerting toxic effects on multiple physiological systems.
The work is review of updated literature related to the Cd toxicity and its impact to human health. This work presented different aspects of Cd as inorganic pollutant in comparison with other similar works.
Response: First of all, a lot of thanks for your professional review work & paid attention on our manuscript. Again thank you so much respected reviewer for the praise of our work. We have revised and improve the structure and quality of revised review article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work aims to elucidate the pathways through which cadmium interferes with human health (lines 49-50). I believe that the objective was completely missed.
The first consideration is that the bibliography on cadmium is very rich, and there is very little that can be added. This consideration in itself makes the authors' work quite irrelevant unless a brilliant job of summarizing, connecting and comparing the effects on different cell types is done. And to me, this was not done. The paragraphs dealing with the pathways are scattered throughout the text and must be sufficiently highlighted.
The figures confirm that the manuscript is out of focus. They are very general, simple and simplistic, certainly unsuitable for a work that should summarise the state of the art. Table 1, lane 1 in particular, is confusing and, overall, the information reported is too general. (what does minor respiratory irritation mean in a paper dealing with pathways?)
The choice of titles of the various sections further supports the confusion that characterises the manuscript. They range from effects on tissue (lungs and kidneys), to those on processes (filtration), and on systems (immune and reproductive). Coherence is missing.
In the final chapter, 3, it is unclear why this information is not mentioned in the previous chapters, describing Cd effects. Furthermore, it is so generic and general that it adds nothing.
In conclusion, the manuscript needs to be completely revised to be relevant. The authors should focus on the pathways shared by the various cell types and highlight differences if existing, rather than organising their work on the type of tissue (or system or process or else).
A curiosity: from the author's affiliation, it seems they lack medical expertise. Why do they treat medical aspects?
Author Response
Point-by-Point Response
Manuscript Number: atmosphere-3362052
Title: Effects of Cadmium Pollution: Understanding Its Impacts on Human Health
Journal: Atmosphere
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
On behalf of the co-authors, I am highly thankful to Editor for giving us an opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript in your well reputable journal. We also appreciate the all reviewers for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript work quality. Revised portions are marked with {Yellow Color} in the manuscript. We have made corrections carefully under the light of reviewer’s suggestions as followed:
Reviewer’s Comments
Reviewer (Remarks to the Author)
-The work aims to elucidate the pathways through which cadmium interferes with human health (lines 49-50). I believe that the objective was completely missed.
Response: First of all, a lot of thanks for your professional review work & paid attention on our manuscript. Again thank you so much respected reviewer for the constructive valuable comments. We agree with you we don’t have completed this objective of current review article related to (this review aims to highlight the importance of minimizing Cd exposure and implementing measures to protect human health from its lethal legacy). Now in revised version we have added and completed the main objectives of review report (Page 15).
-The first consideration is that the bibliography on cadmium is very rich, and there is very little that can be added. This consideration in itself makes the authors' work quite irrelevant unless a brilliant job of summarizing, connecting and comparing the effects on different cell types is done. And to me, this was not done. The paragraphs dealing with the pathways are scattered throughout the text and must be sufficiently highlighted.
Response: Thank you so much respected reviewer for the constructive valuable comment. We have tried to improve the quality of bibliography with the citations of well reputed published papers. In addition, we have discussed separately sources and exposure pathways of Cd, natural and anthropogenic sources of Cd (Page 02).
-The figures confirm that the manuscript is out of focus. They are very general, simple and simplistic, certainly unsuitable for a work that should summarize the state of the art. Table 1, lane 1 in particular, is confusing and, overall, the information reported is too general. (What does minor respiratory irritation mean in a paper dealing with pathways?)
Response: Thank you so much respected reviewer for the constructive valuable suggestion. Respected reviewer, we have revised and improved the quality of revised review article, and also we reorganized the structure of Table 1 and make it logical and clear to the audience, and now easy to understand (Page 03).
-The choice of titles of the various sections further supports the confusion that characterizes the manuscript. They range from effects on tissue (lungs and kidneys), to those on processes (filtration), and on systems (immune and reproductive). Coherence is missing.
Response: Respected reviewer, we have revised and improved the sub-heading of revised review article. In addition, we have explained it separately effect of Cd on tissue (lungs and kidneys) and effect of Cd on different system (filtration), and (immune and reproductive).
-In the final chapter, 3, it is unclear why this information is not mentioned in the previous chapters, describing Cd effects. Furthermore, it is so generic and general that it adds nothing.
Response: Respected reviewer, according to suggestion we have revised and merge the chapter number 3 and 4. In addition, we have improved the describing Cd effects.
-In conclusion, the manuscript needs to be completely revised to be relevant. The authors should focus on the pathways shared by the various cell types and highlight differences if existing, rather than organizing their work on the type of tissue (or system or process or else).
Response: Thank you so much respected reviewer for the constructive valuable comments. We have revised and improve the conclusion accordingly as suggested (Page 15-16).
-A curiosity: from the author's affiliation, it seems they lack medical expertise. Why do they treat medical aspects?
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful observation. Actually, our primary expertise lies in studying the effects of cadmium toxicity on various body systems of mammalian models, specifically mice and rats. However, as humans are also mammals, the physiological mechanisms and toxicological pathways frequently exhibit significant similarities across species. This shared biology allows us to extrapolate findings from animal models to provide insights into potential implications for human health.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSuggested title: Effects of Cadmium Pollution on Human Health, a narrative review. (Such change is necessary, because this is no systematic review and no meta-analysis of earlier studies)
Author Response
Point-by-Point Response
Manuscript Number: atmosphere-3362052
Title: Effects of Cadmium Pollution: Understanding Its Impacts on Human Health
Journal: Atmosphere
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Suggested title: Effects of Cadmium Pollution on Human Health, a narrative review. (Such change is necessary, because this is no systematic review and no meta-analysis of earlier studies).
Response: First of all, a lot of thanks for your professional review work & paid attention on our manuscript. Again thank you so much respected reviewer for the constructive valuable comment. We have revised and improved title as suggested (Page 01). In addition, we have revised and improve the structure and quality of revised review article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost questions are response.
Author Response
First of all, a lot of thanks for your professional review work & paid attention on our manuscript. Again thank you so much respected reviewer for the acceptance.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the attempt made by the authors to improve the paper but the result is still, in my opinion, not sufficient.
The topics are too broad and consequently treated too superficially. A few additions in the introduction and conclusions are insufficient to make it better organised.
I am sorry but the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form.
Author Response
First of all, a lot of thanks for your professional review work & paid attention on our manuscript. Again thank you so much respected reviewer for the constructive valuable suggestion.
The topics are too broad and consequently treated too superficially. A few additions in the introduction and conclusions are insufficient to make it better organised.
Response: Respected reviewer, we have revised and separated above both sub sections.
I am sorry but the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form.
Response: Respected reviewer, we have revised and improved the quality and scientific sound of the revised manuscript.
